The making of research funding in Austria: transition politics and institutional development, 1945–2005

Abstract

In many cases, the long-term development patterns of research policy still remain blurred. However, historical insights may lead to a better understanding of what makes research funding work. A perspective of 60 years on the situation in Austria exemplifies a system run by a broad set of stakeholders. Consensus among those stakeholders is necessary for the implementation of new elements. Once agreed upon, such elements remain stable for a long time as any change requires a new consensus. Thus individual stakeholders tend to add bypass solutions, while existing principal-agent relationships develop lock-ins. The system needs sufficient pressure to be built up by those factors in order to trigger substantial change.

Managing ideational complexity in public policies: the case of public research funding

“…However, this also generates coordination problems between agencies, as the same research topic might be funded by different agencies (using different criteria), creating opportunities for researchers to play strategically and weakening the ability to steer research. To at least partially address this issue, Austria took (in 2004) the path of consolidating the three market-oriented agencies into the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (Stampfer et al 2010).…”

How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: An international overview

“…How science policies for SIPP are ingrained in the research agenda at the national level [ 18 - 20 ], how they are adjusted to the educational sphere [ 21 ], how they are formatted under external pressures [ 22 ], and how they are included in citizen and democratic procedures are all important issues. The dialogue around, and actions aimed at, producing stronger investigative SIPP research highlights two elements: the need to consider other key players beyond just scientists and policy makers, and the benefits of understanding the influence of scrutinizing institutions on the role of science in policy making [ 23 ].…”